1.
Answer:
I chose to save people with the “higher” social values. Personally, I tended to have
this selection because of two reasons. Firstly, I prioritize to the social contribution and
I believe that the higher social status people have, the more values they contribute to
the community. It is said that the connection between social participation and
occupations can play a significant role in terms of “success”, therefore, the origin of
voluntary activities and participation in them are frequently gained by a professional
or businessman to support their career (Foskett 1955). Secondly, I also respect to
people who have the personal responsibility and this value obviously exists at higher
social status people rather than the lower one. This value shows that people are
willing to accept the significance of social standards set for individual behaviours and
their duty is to achieve it for a firm foundation before doing anything they want
(Haskins 2009).
2. Answer:
I chose to save most of the older people in the test. According to theory of
Kantianism, humans are not basically “objects”, instead, they are persons who are
worth-respected; particularly, people must not be treated as mere tools in order to
pursue anyone’s goals (MacDonald 2018). Therefore, I chose to save the elderly
because I respect their experience, their contribution to the civilization as well as their
own values that I cannot find at the other age-level people. No matter how long they
can live or contribute to the society, they are worth treated well without any suspicion
of their potential or burden in terms of “social welfares”.
3. Answer:
Regarding species preference, I preferred completely the “Hoomans” than the “Pets”.
The theory of Utilitarianism is said to focus on the possibility of summing human-
being’s utility to present a total one, which means this ethical theory mainly
emphasizes the creation of happiness as well as the capability of happiness
distribution as widely as possible (Scarre 1996). Following the theory, I think saving
as many lives as possible is one way to minimize the sufferings and widespread the
happiness because humans will be able to improve and better the future of the Earth,
create more long-term values and reduce the tragic for other people. However, I do
not mean to deny the right to life of animals but in some cases, I would prioritize the
right for human first due to the fact that persons are the key factor to stimulate the
development of this world.
4. Answer:
In terms of gender preference, I chose to save more females than males. This choice
does not merely come from my personal bias, instead, it is based on the issue of
gender inequality. From the scope of feminism, Kantianism has explained that women
are generally less powerful and deserves fewer rights than men in any sexual
relationships, which mean they are the “mere tools”- according to Kant’s theory. Even
if it happens vice versa - females can objectify males, this may not very often occur in
practice (Papadaki 2007). In doing so, I realized that women have not been respected
their identities yet, which the balance of existence and right here is still ambiguous, so
I decided to save most of females to clarify and follow the core idea of Kantianism.
References
Foskett, JM 1955, ‘Social Structure and Social Participation’, American Sociological Review,
vol. 20, no. 4, p. 431.
Haskins, R 2009, The Sequence of Personal Responsibility, Brookings, Brookings, viewed 29
March 2025, <[Link]
MacDonald, C 2018, Ethical Theory: Kantianism, The Concise Encyclopedia of Business
Ethics, viewed 29 March 2025, <[Link]
kantianism/>.
Papadaki, E 2007, ‘Sexual Objectification: From Kant to Contemporary Feminism’,
Contemporary Political Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 330–348.
Scarre, G 1996, Utilitarianism, 1st edn, Routlege, London.